ALL of those on "dearh row" were convicted based on the fact that their guilt was proven "beyond a REASONABLE doubt," yet we are constantly hearing of cases where new evidence has overturned those cases.

ALL of those on "dearh row" were convicted based on the fact that their guilt was proven "beyond a REASONABLE doubt," yet we are constantly hearing of cases where new evidence has overturned those cases.

Arguing that capital punishment should be abolished because people sometimes are wrongfully convicted and executed is like arguing that we should get rid of jail time because some people are wrongfully imprisoned for years. That is, it ignores the fact that the problem isn't capital punishment. Rather, the problem is a breakdown in the judicial system at some level. In the majority of cases where the verdict is wrong, one of four things generally happen: a judge is bribed (As was the case with Nathson Fields), the police botch the investigation, the prosecutions withholds evidence or the technology didn't exist at the time of the person's conviction to exonerate them of wrongdoing (I'm speaking specifically of DNA testing). The first three instances are a matter of overhauling the system, instituting rigorous standards of which to abide by (i.e., holding, for example, police officers way more accountable for conducting an investigation properly than they currently are and making it a heck of a lot harder for the prosecution to withhold pertinent evidence to a case), while the last the last is merely a matter of science catching up to the law, which it has done immensely over the past few decades or so.

I've read this before, and I wouldn't say anything. That'd be akin to rubbing salt on a wound, henceforth why it's important to overhaul the system to make sure that these sort of things don't happen in the future.

> Ted Bundy was awaiting trial and no, I wouldn't want him executed prior to trial.

Then the death penalty for murder would have done nothing to stop him (he didn't kill anyone after he was convicted) and your statement that it would have saved the lives of his Florida victims is mistaken. What would have saved the lives of his Florida victims would be better escape-proofing of jails, which is a different issue. (Though you could relate it to the issue of the death penalty if you can find examples of people who escaped and killed *after* they had been convicted of crimes that you would have had them executed for.)

> Which brings up another pet peeve of mine. Speedy trials. He should have been held

> under tighter restrictions, tried quickly and executed.

Agreed with a few quibbles. Unfortunately, speeding up the justice system would be difficult in many respects - not only would it require more resources (more judges, etc.) but it often takes time for the police to collect the evidence needed to gain a conviction. If they sped up the trials, they would have less time to collect evidence and double-check it, resulting in both fewer convictions of the guilty and more mistakes (which might result in more conviction of the innocent). Alas, you can't do just one thing.

> Once again, splitting hairs on intrinsic value. Intrinsic value is a human concept that

> is applied. We don't have an organ inside of us called intrinsic value. Even if intrinsic

All this statement means is that *you* don't really believe that intrinsic value is possible - it doesn't fit into your world-view. (This is probably why you kept asking who gave the intrinsic value.) To those who do believe in intrinsic value, it really is intrinsic, not extrinsic. Apparently you believe that all value is extrinsic, but others do not share that belief.

It goes back to the rabid dog thing. Bundy was too dangerous to be allowed extradition. For someone like him, there should be expediency in getting him into the grave. I do believe there should be legal process but safety should be paramount. The fact is humans are the hardest creatures to incarcerate. What one man designs to be inescapable, another genius can make it escapable. Human beings, due to intelligence, is the most dangerous creature.

It is only revenge if you want an eye for an eye. It is not revenge when you would choose fixing the problem if that were an option. One day, that will be an option. Then I will be 100% against capital punishment. Until then, I do want dangerous people dead. I want them killed quickly.

My mind isn't closed on this... gotta think about it. This might make an inteesting dinner conversation with my wife. Frankly, I really don't know for sure what Mary Clare thinks about this. She's a practicing catholic so I'm sure that will influence her opinion. I'll bring it up and if we do get into it I'll post the gist of our conversation.

Some catholics are for the death penalty, as are some Atheists. Opposition to the death penalty comes from inside a person, not from their religion or lack of religion. It starts with how easily the person can devalue, or dehumanize, another. I can't do either so I am fundamentally opposed to the killing of my fellow humans as a form of revenge.

You are just self-aggrandizing yourself. You just value guilty people over innocent ones. You don't like victims. If someone is falsely accused, that is just swell that they get the maximum sentence (as long as another nation does it). However, when it is a genuine criminal, you have affinity for them. More than the victims. Especially future victims. One criminal is worth more to you than 10 victims. Victims are not statistically significant to you. They have no intrinsic value.

As usual, when a posting begins with such a blatant personal attack, I don't bother reading the rest. Try leaving out the personal attacks, they just ruin your credibility.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."― Robert G. Ingersoll,

> It goes back to the rabid dog thing. Bundy was too dangerous to be allowed extradition.

But that's hind-sight talking. How are they going to know that he is so dangerous then? We only know that now because *now* we know that he was a serial killer and an imaginative escape artist.

> For someone like him, there should be expediency in getting him into the grave.

But how do you know that someone like him *is* someone like him before it is too late? Do you just execute everyone accused of murder to make sure the Bundies don't get by? Or do you allow accused murderers to survive until trial, knowing that this gives them possible opportunities to escape? No system is perfect.

> I do believe there should be legal process but safety should be paramount. The fact

> is humans are the hardest creatures to incarcerate. What one man designs to be

> inescapable, another genius can make it escapable. Human beings, due to intelligence,

> is the most dangerous creature.

So how do you intend to solve that problem? Our current system is that it is better to risk possible escapes than it is to execute the accused without a fair trial. We try to minimize the escapes, but as you say, that's never going to work perfectly because humans (even evil humans) can be so ingenious. For the death penalty to solve that problem, you'd have to start applying it before the trial - basically, to kill the accused.

> Until then, I do want dangerous people dead. I want them killed quickly.

Even if you have to kill the innocent too to accomplish that goal? I can't agree with that. While no system is perfect, your proposed shift in the legal system would apparently lead to more executions of the innocent by the state. Very few killers escape from death row - I'd rather take the risk of them escaping before they get to death row than more executing of innocent people by the government. This is not because I don't value the lives of the innocent victims (as you accused MM), but rather because I value the lives of all innocents, including the ones falsely accused of crimes (who would be executed in larger numbers in your hastier and more execution-prone system).